Mlodinow: We Invent the Laws of Nature

[Skepdick]

The state of the universe is not a "portion" of reality.

It's the whole reality.

Pointless remarks that serve no purpose other than to distract. Nitpicking. Pedantics.

No, you imbecille. The purpose of remarks (every single one of them) is to make you point.

My point is that you are NOT making a point.

POINT to where the unicorn is.

You need to learn how to communicate, annoying manchild.

I believe that's purpose of this conversation, manchild. To teach you how to communicate. By answering simple questions.

Like "Where is the unicorn you are talking about?"

Asking one and the same question over and over again is not the right way to do so

It's the question I need answered in order to continue communicating with you, manchild.

It's the information that I need. I need to know WHERE the unicorn is.

And you don't get to tell me what I fucking need.

especially after you've been told that your question isn't perceived as a relevant one.

You don't get to decide what's relevant for me. If the question was irrelevant I wouldn't ask it.

Learn to communicate, manchild. You are not in control of the narrative - it's a turn-based game.

You're asking the other side to do the irrational thing -- to answer a question they don't perceive as worthy of their answer.

My questions aren't worthy to you? What makes your questions worthy to me?

If the only mode of interaction you are comfortable with is one of dominion and denigration, then consider yourself worthless to me.

Or do you want to try mutual respect?

Instead of doing that, how about actually proving that your question is relevant?

This question is not worthy of my answer.

Or at least making an effort to understand what your question is perceived as irrelevant?

This question is not worthy of my answer.

Who said that I am convinced that unicorns exist?

You did. When you started talking about unicorns.

If unicorns don't exist, then what are you talking about?

[Skepdick]

I am using the term "contains at least one unicorn" to describe "the present state of the universe".

WHERE is the part of the universe which convinced you that the universe contains at least one unicorn?

[Magnus Anderson]

Like "Where is the unicorn you are talking about?"

Not only are you asking a dumb question, you're also asking a question I already answered ( more than once. )

It's the question I need answered in order to continue communicating with you, manchild.

You should either pay more attention or you should stop lying.

It's the information that I need. I need to know WHERE the unicorn is.

That made me chuckle.

And you don't get to tell me what I fucking need.

Your entire philosophy is centered around ensuring that you remain undisturbed in your bubble.

You don't get to decide what's relevant for me. If the question was irrelevant I wouldn't ask it.

Come on, you can't be this retarded. You do realize I was talking about what's relevant to me? I wasn't talking about you. But then again, why am I surprised, it's more than clear that you have a serious difficulty figuring out what other people are saying.

If the only mode of interaction you are comfortable with is one of dominion and denigration

You need to work on your self-awareness.

You did. When you started talking about unicorns.

See how impossible it is to have a conversation with you?

If unicorns don't exist, then what are you talking about?

I already answered that question.

[Skepdick]

Like "Where is the unicorn you are talking about?"

Not only are you asking a dumb question, you're also asking a question I already answered ( more than once. )

If the question was dumb; or if you had answered it - I wouldn't keep asking it.

Take a hint.

You should either pay more attention or you should stop lying.

Your moral judgment is as dysfunctional as your intellectual aparatus.

Your entire philosophy is centered around ensuring that you remain undisturbed in your bubble.

You are talking about your imagination again...

Much like I am not 30 meters tall; I also don't have a philosophy.

Come on, you can't be this retarded. You do realize I was talking about what's relevant to me?

You get to determine the relevance of your questions.
I get to determine the relevance of my questions.

It's very silly for you to determine the relevance of my question.

I wasn't talking about you. But then again, why am I surprised, it's more than clear that you have a serious difficulty figuring out what other people are saying.

That's rich coming from somebody who doesn't understand what's expected from them when asked a question like "Where is the unicorn?"

You need to work on your self-awareness.

I am just mirroring your style of interaction. See anything familiar? That's how mirrors work...

See how impossible it is to have a conversation with you?

I know. You caused the impossibility.

With your inability to yield your turn and answer questions. You are just a disagreeable, uncooperative imbecille.

The standard personality type to frequent this forum.

If unicorns don't exist, then what are you talking about?

I already answered that question.

If you had answered it I wouldn't be asking it over, and over, and over.

Take a hint.

[Magnus Anderson]

You are talking about a "unicorn". Where is it?

Nah, I am not talking about a unicorn.

To talk about a unicorn means to say something about some real life unicorn. It is to describe it partially or completely. An example would be "Mary's unicorn has a very long horn!" The described portion of reality, in that case, is "The length of Mary's unicorn's horn". The description is "Very long".

Compare that to "Unicorns exist" where the described portion of reality is "The number of unicorns in the world at the moment" and the description is "At least one". Alternatively, one can say that the described portion of reality is "The set of all unicorns that exist in the present" and the description is "A non-empty set". Or one can say that the described portion of reality is "The present state of the universe" and the description is "A state that contains at least one unicorn". It's all the same -- or at least, it's super close to being so. The difference is mostly, if not entirely, cosmetic.

I am seriously not talking about any particular real life unicorn. That much should be obvious.

But I am also not talking about any particular real life non-empty group of unicorns.

[Magnus Anderson]

Like "Where is the unicorn you are talking about?"

Not only are you asking a dumb question, you're also asking a question I already answered ( more than once. )

If the question was dumb; or if you had answered it - I wouldn't keep asking it.

It's a seriously dumb one. But let's put that aside and focus on something that is much easier to prove, e.g. whether or not I have answered your stupid question that you keep asking over and over again like an annoying little child.

where in the entire universe is this unicorn located at that particular instance in time?

Nowhere, dummy.

That's page 11, September 14th, two days ago.

FIne. Where is that one unicorn?

Nowhere, manchild.

So where in the entire universe is the one unicorn you are referring to

Nowhere, fuckface.

WHERE is it?

Nowhere, dipshit.

September 13th

Unicorns do not exist anywhere, dummy. How many times must it be said?

Unicorns do not exist as concepts inside your head. Unicorns do not exist at all. When people say "Unicorns only exist as concepts", they are merely saying "Unicorns do not exist, only concepts of unicorns do." It's figurative speech not meant to be taken literally.

The concept of unicorn exists. Unicorns don't.

The concept of unicorn is invented, you imbecile. Unicorns aren't. They do not even exist, so how can you say they were invented?

[Magnus Anderson]

I am just mirroring your style of interaction.

You are a widely disliked forum member, dummy.

With your inability to yield your turn and answer questions. You are just a disagreeable, uncooperative imbecille.

The standard personality type to frequent this forum.

A perfect self-description.

If you had answered it I wouldn't be asking it over, and over, and over.

Do you realize how narcissistic the above statement is?

[Skepdick]

Like "Where is the unicorn you are talking about?"

Not only are you asking a dumb question, you're also asking a question I already answered ( more than once. )

If the question was dumb; or if you had answered it - I wouldn't keep asking it.

It's a seriously dumb one. But let's put that aside and focus on something that is much easier to prove, e.g. whether or not I have answered your stupid question that you keep asking over and over again like an annoying little child.

where in the entire universe is this unicorn located at that particular instance in time?

Nowhere, dummy.

Contradiction.

FIne. Where is that one unicorn?

Nowhere, manchild.

Contradiction.

So where in the entire universe is the one unicorn you are referring to

Nowhere, fuckface.

Contradiction.

WHERE is it?

Nowhere, dipshit.

Contradiction.

September 13th

Unicorns do not exist anywhere, dummy. How many times must it be said?

Contradiction.

Do you want me to keep carrying on, manchild?

If you ever learn to communicate then you might actually figure out that

"There exists at least one unicorn in the universe" and "That unicorn is nowhere" amounts to a contradiction.

A unicorn that exists nowhere is a unicorn that doesn't exist.

So what the fuck are you talking about?

[Skepdick]

You are a widely disliked forum member, dummy.

Why do you dislike a mirror?

A perfect self-description.

So the mirror reflection is perfect then, is it?

Do you realize how narcissistic the above statement is?

No, you are just a fucking idiot.

The answer "nowhere" to the question "Where does the unicorn exist in the universe?" results in a contradiction.
Where in your house is the cat? Nowhere. So the cat doesn't exist in the house.
Where in the universe is the unicorn? Nowhere. So the unicorn doesn't exist in the universe.

You are talking about an existing unicorn that exists nowhere. Not even in your imagination.

Contradicting yourself is not answering the question, imbecile.

I keep saying it, and you keep being too fucking retarded to comprehend it: YOU CANNOT TALK ABOUT THINGS THAT DON'T EXIST.

This isn't one of those "I am forbidding you from doing it" things. This is one of those "it's impossible despite your desire to the contrary" things.

You can describe it as the law of non-contradiction.
You can describe it as invoking an empty set.
You can describe it as null-pointer exception.
You can describe it as absurdity.

There are an infinite number of ways to describe it and explain it, and so far zero number of ways for you to understand it.

[Skepdick]

<blah blah blah>

Even ChatGPT is smarter than you.

If I say that a unicorn exists and then you ask where; and then I answer nowhere.

Does the unicorn exist?

In this scenario, the statement "A unicorn exists" contradicts the subsequent statement "Nowhere." In common language and formal logic, existence typically implies being present in some location, even if that location is not a physical one (such as an idea existing in someone's mind).

If you say a unicorn exists but then clarify that it exists "nowhere," you are effectively stating a contradiction. In traditional logic, a contradiction—two statements that cannot both be true at the same time—suggests that at least one of the statements is false.

[Magnus Anderson]

The answer "nowhere" to the question "Where does the unicorn exist in the universe?" results in a contradiction.

But it is an answer, isn't it?

Are you now going to stop saying that I didn't answer your question?

Contradicting yourself is not answering the question, imbecile.

An answer is an answer even if it contains a contradiction within itself or contradicts something previously said.

You are talking about an existing unicorn that exists nowhere. Not even in your imagination.

I am not talking about existing unicorns ( and certainly not about "an existing unicorn". )

I did not say "Unicorns that exist exist".

I said "Unicorns exist".

I keep saying it, and you keep being too fucking retarded to comprehend it: YOU CANNOT TALK ABOUT THINGS THAT DON'T EXIST.

You most definitely repeat yourself. In most cases, it's unnecessary and counter-productive, but you nonetheless do it while shifting the blame to the other side.

"It's not my fault, I am perfect. It's his fault. I don't have to adjust, all I have to do is be insane and keep doing one and the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. And even if I adjust, which I will never do, he won't understand it because he's incapable of understanding anything."

Have you tried proving your claim that we can't talk about things that don't exist?

But before, you should explain to us what it means to say that someone is talking about things that don't exist.

[Atla]

"Where does the unicorn exist in the universe?"

It's also possible that your brain would be capable of the abstract/concrete distinction, but your mother tongue lacks the abstract, for example I think some African languages lack it. So maybe you never learned to use that. Is any of the below your mother tongue?

According to the 2011 census, the two most spoken first languages are Zulu (22.7%) and Xhosa (16.0%). The two next ones are of European origin: Afrikaans (13.5%) developed from Dutch and serves as the first language of most Coloured and White South Africans; English (9.6%) reflects the legacy of British colonialism and is commonly used in public and commercial life.

Official languages 12 languages
Afrikaans
English
Ndebele
Sepedi
Sesotho
Setswana
South African Sign Language
Swazi
Tshivenda
Xhosa
Xitsonga
Zulu

[Skepdick]

"Where does the unicorn exist in the universe?"

It's also possible that your brain would be capable of the abstract/concrete distinction, but your mother tongue lacks the abstract, for example I think some African languages lack it. So maybe you never learned to use that. Is any of the below your mother tongue?

The number of imbecilles just doubled. I am perfectly aware of the abstract/concrete distinction.

I am also aware of the ever-present source of confusion and bias in communication where the concrete exists and the abstract doesn't.

The purpose of the WHERE? question is two-fold.

1. I forces you to place yourself IN the map.
2. It forces you to locate the abstract concept YOU are talking about IN the map; and in your head.

Because everything exists. Abstract/concrete - doesn't fucking matter!

It's called reification. It's the act of concretizing the abstract.

[Atla]

"Where does the unicorn exist in the universe?"

It's also possible that your brain would be capable of the abstract/concrete distinction, but your mother tongue lacks the abstract, for example I think some African languages lack it. So maybe you never learned to use that. Is any of the below your mother tongue?

The number of imbecilles just doubled. I am perfectly aware of the abstract/concrete distinction.

I am also aware of the ever-present source of confusion and bias in communication where the concrete exists and the abstract doesn't.

The purpose of the WHERE? question is two-fold.

1. I forces you to place yourself IN the map.
2. It forces you to locate the abstract concept YOU are talking about IN the map; and in your head.

Because everything exists. Abstract/concrete - doesn't fucking matter!

It's called reification. It's the act of concretizing the abstract.

You've never been able to grasp the abstract/concrete distinction, it's a major deficit, look I just asked what your mother tongue is.

[Magnus Anderson]

Because everything exists.

So horses that have a horn exist? It's just that they are tiny horses existing inside people's heads? They are a little shy, I suppose, so they never leave our heads. And no person ever let them out, intentionally or unintentionally.